https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8791

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMABAY** **MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E025 OF 2025** FRANCIS ONYANGO AYUKI………………….......................................... APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC .............................................................................................. RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. By his Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2025, the Applicant seeks a review of the life sentence imposed upon him and prays that the same be substituted with a more lenient and definite term of imprisonment. 2. The application is premised on the grounds that the Applicant is a first offender who has undergone rehabilitation during his incarceration, learnt from his mistakes, and is now prepared to reintegrate into society as a responsible citizen. To demonstrate his reformation, he requested that a social inquiry report and a report on his conduct while in prison custody be prepared and availed to the Court by the relevant departments. 3. For the Respondent, learned prosecution counsel informed the Court that the State did not oppose the reduction of the life sentence and proposed that it be substituted with a determinate sentence of thirty (30) years' imprisonment. Counsel relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in **Evans Nyamaro Oyako v Republic, Kisumu Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2018.** 4. Counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court has pronounced itself on the constitutional infirmity associated with indeterminate sentences and that its reasoning is consistent with the principles enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the aforementioned decision. 5. The Respondent also supported the Applicant's request for the preparation of reports from the correctional services and probation departments. 6. The Court acceded to the request and directed that reports be prepared by the Kenya Prisons Service and the Probation and Aftercare Service. Both reports have since been filed and the Court has carefully considered them. The reports have provided valuable insight into the Applicant's conduct, rehabilitation, and prospects for reintegration into society. 7. From the evolving jurisprudence of the superior courts, particularly the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, it is evident that concerns have been raised regarding the indeterminate nature of life imprisonment and its compatibility with constitutional principles relating to human dignity and fair sentencing. The Respondent's concession appears to be informed by this jurisprudential development and the ongoing legislative proposals to abandon death penalty for robbery with violence. 8. In the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the applicable legal principles, the Court is persuaded that a determinate sentence would better serve the interests of justice. 9. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court has taken into account the reports filed by the probation and prison authorities, both of which portray the Applicant as having undergone significant rehabilitation. The Court is particularly impressed by the Applicant's acquisition of vocational skills in carpentry, which will enable him to earn a lawful livelihood upon his eventual release. 10. The Court also notes that the Applicant enjoys the support of his family and community and that the victims have expressed their willingness to welcome his reintegration into society. This support network enhances the prospects of successful rehabilitation and reintegration. 11. The record shows that the Applicant was arrested on 17th November 2015 and remained in custody throughout the trial, having not been released on bond. Consequently, the entire period spent in remand custody ought to be taken into account. 12. Accordingly, the life sentence presently being served by the Applicant is hereby set aside and substituted with a sentence of thirty (30) years' imprisonment, to be computed from 17th November 2015. 13. It is so ordered. Dated, signed and delivered this 12th day of June, 2026. Patrick J O Otieno Judge